Not sure about the numeracy here

Ambitious graduates are no longer interested in pursuing careers in banking because they are too “socially conscious”, the outgoing head of Britain’s biggest graduate recruiter has said.

Since the financial crash, lucrative graduate schemes in the city have lost their allure as big pay packets alone now fail to motivate young people, according to the founder of Teach First.

Well, OK, I can imagine a change at the margin, certainly.

Teach First has been the biggest graduate recruiter for the past three years, with over 1,400 graduates each year sent to teach in deprived schools. The vast majority – around 70 per cent – of recruits are from the elite Russel Group universities.

How many do graduate each year? 400,000? I’d have thought the graduate entry into banking was still higher than Teach First then…..

17 thoughts on “Not sure about the numeracy here”

  1. “Teach First has been the biggest graduate recruiter for the past three years,”

    Meanwhile, in an unrelated article in another paper in a parallel universe, there is a desperate recruitment shortage of teachers due to low pay and THE TORIES.

  2. Teach First has been the biggest graduate recruiter for the past three years, with over 1,400 graduates each year sent to teach in deprived schools.

    It is dwarfed in aggregate by thousands or tens of thousands of other recruiters, each of whom just doesn’t happen to be as large as this one single organisation.

  3. There was a similar touchy feely drift in the late ’80s, and not just with young graduates. Many in their ’30s felt worn down by the decade, the rat race, and looked for a more ‘fulfilling’ career (whatever that means). It soon fizzled out and we all went back to kicking each other in the nuts.

  4. Meanwhile, in an unrelated article in another paper in a parallel universe, there is a desperate recruitment shortage of teachers due to low pay and THE TORIES.

    That may be all those graduates realising that teaching in “deprived schools” isn’t quite what Teach First and the government said it would be.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    Rob – “That may be all those graduates realising that teaching in “deprived schools” isn’t quite what Teach First and the government said it would be.”

    Some brave soul in the US published a book with the catchy title to the effect that there were no bad schools only bad students. Which is probably about right – although Right On Trots don’t help.

    There are no deprived schools. They are simply culturally and genetically impoverished students. Nowt you can do about that.

  6. “There are no deprived schools. They are simply culturally and genetically impoverished students. Nowt you can do about that.”

    Nowt will be done. Bring back reform school. Put the thugs in it. Stop poisoning the masses.

  7. SMFS,

    “There are no deprived schools. They are simply culturally and genetically impoverished students. ”

    I’m convinced that everyone has got the “good schools” thing the wrong way around. My kids went to what is considered the best primary school in the town and I thought that it was pretty average. I got little sense of dedication from the teachers, or leadership from the head. But it does fine. Why? Because it’s in the leafy, rich part of town and gets bright kids and parents that motivate them and if the school fails, they fill in. They buy maths games for the kids, they will hire private tutors if necessary.

    And forget “academies”. Once they’re all academies, the reality is going to kick in that academy schools subtly select kids.

  8. @ SMFS
    There *are* deprived schools and there have been for years. Schools that don’t get the facilities they need because they don’t tick the right boxes for the LEA bureaucrats. They usually aren’t the “failing” schools! The “failing” schools hit the headlines in the local newspaper and the parents complain to the local councillors. The ones that struggle to get near-median results with half the resources are left to struggle.
    I could give an anecdote about a local school with well-above-average performance that was denied adequate funding as a result.

  9. “socially conscious” in inverted commas.
    I was socially conscious at that age – and earlier, and later – but it led me into doing something where I should be useful which in my case was *not* teaching.
    Some people *do* choose teaching because they want to help the world, which is admirable. However I am mildly surprised that 70% of “Teach First” graduates come from the “Russell Group” as I should have expected those graduates to be disproprtionately choosing to be university lecturers rather than school teachers.

  10. Some of my local schools are great, some not so great.
    All have the same problem, they are babysitting services for parents.

    Start GCSEs and take 2 years to learn them. Start A levels and take 2 years to learn them. And get a range of results.

    Funnily enough in 2008 my wife started a foundation science year at a college 3 bus journeys away. A year, and someone who had left school 20 years previous with an O level.
    Lots of people on the course who were mature students, some with zero qualifications.
    In 12 weeks they did GCSEs. And passed.
    In 12 weeks they did A levels. And passed.
    Similar number to what schools did, just without the babysitting element.

    Unlike most of the school kids she was travelling a couple of hours each way.

    If adults aged over 18 can do that with basic resources of a local college, why does the same thing done in 24 weeks take 4 years for the young teens?
    Not as if the adults are merely refreshing their knowledge – maths, chemistry, physics, biology, stuff that pretty much you only learn in a classroom or lab.

    What could the young teens do if not babysat?

    Does it really take 2 years to do GCSE English? I have that qualification myself, we spent a chunk of the time learning to cook and a longer time learning to play a couple of dozen card games. Oh and we did a few essays and a comprehension as well. So I know how much time I spent learning to pass GCSE English.

    The computer GCSE was amazingly easy – for a woman who was a technophobe. Prior to the course she could do data entry and read a web page but was not familiar with MS packages or do much with the computer.
    After just a few weeks she was showing me stuff in excel – that I’d been using for many years – that I wasn’t aware of.
    Have never met a 13/14 year old who had so few skills as her – and she did very well on the foundation year.

    Do we keep the kids back when they could do so much more?

  11. @ Martin
    When I was 15/16 I (and everyone in my school) had to take two subjects unrelated to my ‘A’ level courses for two 45-minute lessons a week; the Economics course was popular because the teacher was an Irish former Indian Civil Servant whose interesting/amusing reminiscences took up most of the time. I was told after two terms that only those wanting to take ‘O’ level Economics could stay on for a second year so I took ‘O’ level and passed; another guy took ‘O’ level Economics after two years having interpreted what the instruction *meant* to say rather than what it actually said!
    A lot depends on ability but more on willingness to learn. I take it for granted that your wife *really* wanted to learn because she made the effort to take the course at a very inconvenient place.
    OTOH It was ridiculous that the learning required for French or Latin ‘O’ levels was twenty-odd times as much as for Economics

  12. If adults aged over 18 can do that with basic resources of a local college, why does the same thing done in 24 weeks take 4 years for the young teens?

    Because they are young teens?

    Their brains really haven’t matured yet. And they don’t really start to mature mathematically until they are about 15.

    You teach kids basic number and measurement up to 15, making almost no progress at all. Then in two years you’re doing complex numbers and differential equations. The sheer pace of learning in the last two years of school maths is tremendous. Because by then they have brains that can cope with that pace and the abstraction.

    Asking why children can’t be like adults is stupid. Not being adults is the very basis of being a child.

  13. @BlokeOnM4 “I’m convinced that everyone has got the “good schools” thing the wrong way around. My kids went to what is considered the best primary school in the town and I thought that it was pretty average”

    Works the other way round too. I spent some time in one of our local sink schools. I thought it was a good school, it managed behaviour well. The results were poor to awful, but the intake was worse.

    Many good schools are just coasting.

  14. “If adults aged over 18 can do that with basic resources of a local college, why does the same thing done in 24 weeks take 4 years for the young teens?”

    The adults want to do it, the young teens don’t.

  15. “If adults aged over 18 can do that with basic resources of a local college, why does the same thing done in 24 weeks take 4 years for the young teens?”

    The adults want to do it, the young teens don’t.

    The adults are presumably paying for it out of their own pockets, and therefore are expecting results. Neither the young teens nor their parents are. See Friedman’s “Four ways to spend money” again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *